Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!ames!sun-barr!decwrl!decvax!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: still problems with ?:
Message-ID: <13705@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 14 Jun 89 18:35:04 GMT
References: <10387@smoke.BRL.MIL> <568@lakart.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 11

In article <568@lakart.UUCP> dg@lakart.UUCP (David Goodenough) writes:
>gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) sez:
>>[The expression ((a = *p++) && e2 ) || (!a && e3) is well-defined]
>>(except when `p' is used in `e2' or `e3').
>
>Huh??? ... my compiler had better use the value _AFTER_ the *p++ ...

You're right; this is still unambiguous.  The pANS specifies that there is a
sequence point after the evaluation of the first operand of &&, ||, or ?:.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint